skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They didn't say dead code analysis was decidable, but purity analysis.

Purity analysis is indeed trivially decidable, if you limit yourself to "probably always pure", not "pure when executed on a Tuesday". It boils down to "is this function calling only pure functions and not using any of the impure operators?". The trouble comes with dynamic languages where you usually don't know shit about a function's arguments, though. In that case you need a control flow Analysis of the whole program.
Every time someone asks you for evidence, you claim that you gave it somewhere else without linking to it, or pretend that you can psychically detect that someone is a "shill."
The type of assets that you need to sell in the next hour, of such a magnitude that there are only a few buyers.
In the discussion here, I am assuming innovation refers specifically to innovative products and business ideas, not stuff that remains confined to your close family.
The other comment has it, but two ways to think about it. "If I have one glass of water I might have another. Then another. And so on until I drown myself."

The main one though is assuming the parties cant adjust course part way though. "If we turn this ship this way we will crash into that island in two days!"

Extropolation is different as it takes into a account changes in behaviour and real world constraints
I've heard that as well. A reminder that most entrepreneurs aren't founding web tech companies.
If you sort by most recent the last posting was yesterday (mobile)
>This is not a statement many people who have been angry recently would agree with.

Well, what "angry people would agree with" is a pretty strange basis for an argument, anyway...

>Trump would've gotten himself banned from any of the forums I hung out in from 2000 to now. Not for being conservative, for being an asshole.

And that would be neither here nor there, cause your forums are not so massive as to shape public opinion and influence elections and news.

In smaller, disperse and diverse, discussion platforms, you would be entitled to think that he should be banned for "being an asshole" and even ban him from your forums, while others would be entitled to ban others that say the same or worse things from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

When one side, in a major public-opinion-influencing service can ban a whole side of the political spectrum though, and even the sitting president, that's a problem.

It's actually analogous to election influencing - same as if 9 out of 10 channels in TV only carried the views from one party and not the other(s).
The problem with saying that "earning a living" is bogus is that it doesn't jibe well with the real world. Being poor is not a good mindset since it is tied to insecurities and uncertainty around food, shelter, and healthcare. Relying on the benevolence of the rich is likewise a plea to the morals of people who historically have not felt the need to behave in a way that fits your specific morals.

The problem is how does one get to a point where the golden age arrives? FLOSS treats this as being incentivized by legal and social means, i.e. software licenses for use and education by orgs such as GNU. This doesn't always solve the issue (as recent events show) but it has been more effective to work within the system and push things forward than to take a stance and live on a hill for it.

Politically, you can see similar events be carried out. China has an explicit governmental goal of eventually entering full Communism. I'm not going to debate if that is a _real_ goal of theirs, but they believed that it could be achieved and people could be given opportunities to achieve that by first opening up to world markets at large. This was after the Great Leap Forward plans failed. Judging by the difference between the GLF and China today it went well for them to operate within the system as well.
> A literal thundering herd might mean owners of GME can't sell

I can assure you there are very few cattle, bison, or caribou near the exchange.
For any contract with vague or difficult language, one has to read in a degree of reasonableness. The intention of that language was most likely to protect Robinhood if it took emergency actions, such as the circuit breakers on stock exchanges that will halt trading if it looks like the computers are doing something crazy (e.g. irrational sub-second runs/crashes of listed stocks). A court could reasonably say that what is happening with Gamestop today is similar to such situations, that Robinhood can protect itself and investors by not executing trades for the period of the crisis. What Robinhood definitely could not do under that language is, for example, halt all trading except on Gamestop. That would definitely not be a reasonable emergency action.
Slippery slope is a valid political tactic for those outside the Overton window.
Robinhood's behavior shows why blockchain-based finance, with its censorship resistance and permissionless participation, is the future.

It's already the case that many of ethereum's DeFi apps can't betray users.

Unlike a centralized financial institution, a DeFi app's smart contract code can be shown to be a public API that treats all users fairly and correctly, with no admin keys or back doors.

Smart contracts can fail for other reasons, such as bugs or bad economics. But, what they can't do is call up their friends and ask them for some favoritism.

In DeFi, we say that smart contracts that can't betray users are "credibly neutral". https://nakamoto.com/credible-neutrality/ (by Vitalik Buterin)

As an example, one important DeFi app that is credibly neutral is Uniswap, a decentralized trading exchange that did $700M in volume yesterday. The main Uniswap app is here https://app.uniswap.org/. Financial stats for Uniswap are available here https://info.uniswap.org/. Yesterday, Uniswap made $2M in fees for its liquidity partners (anyone can provide liquidity). Fee data can been seen here https://cryptofees.info/.

Many tokens on Uniswap are pump-and-dumps or projects that won't succeed. Anyone can list any token. Yet, users seem to love the control and reliability given to them by Uniswap and other DeFi apps.
Surely having a disabled or hidden pull request button is also very solid proof that the maintainer is not accepting pull requests.
I think calling for violence then carrying out actual violence is a bit different than this. But yes, it's like these giants now have a taste for deplatforming and are liberally applying it now.
Or if it's really bad, they make up entirely fanciful slopes that you could fall down.

Does it count as a slippery slope fallacy if the government argues that not stopping encrypted communications will result in terrorists killing your grandma? Because I heard that one a lot when Bush was president and they haven't really ever stopped using it. Is there a better fallacy for that example?
The real solution to tabpocalypse is closing those browser tabs!

I periodically bookmark my open tabs to a dated folder and close all for sanity. Bookmarks search via address bar will find any previous tabs that I still need to access.
> Intellectual Ventures ... has been described as the country's largest and most notorious patent trolling company, the ultimate patent troll, and the most hated company in tech.
She should be sued for that. She's claiming that Ted Cruz is actually trying to get her killed.
> The carefully and orchestrated use of mass media in the 1920s and 1930s, skillfully crafted to lead the electorate to certain political choices, was later used to even accept certain political atrocities (internment camps in the beginning, war and industrial mass murder later).

This is true. However, the part nobody wants to talk about is that it didn't just happen in Germany.
What term would you use for an event, even if if doomed to fail, that involves at least hundreds of people outside (and then inside) of the building where the vice-president is present, chanting "Hang Mike Pence" ? Do you think it's just some of kiddie protest party? Do you think they didn't mean it? Do you think that because it wasn't 100,000 people it doesn't count? Do you think that because they didn't have the army on their side, it can't be an attempt at a coup?
It's not just Robinhood Gold.

All accounts are "Robinhood Instant" by default. You need to permanently opt-out of Robinhood Instant (or wait for deposits/trades to settle) to opt-out.

Edit: to add a link. This info is fairly well buried: https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/robinhood-accou...
You are factually incorrect.

The users on WSB used publicly available data to see that the shorting was occurring. They did what "the pros" constantly do, which is pool resources and make moves collectively. That is not "manipulation" in the legal form of the word. Not like shutting down trading, in one direction only, for retail only.
Since it is individual users on a public forum winning, instead of the guild of hedge fund bros, the power player (Citadel) is forcing the shutdown.

Whether or not pumped up stocks are wise is irrelevant. The fact that something that happens constantly gets axed because the wrong people are winning is the issue.
Because you keep saying someone did this without showing that someone to be who you're accusing.

And because spamming the same comment across the thread is... spammy.
Elon Musk “Shorting is a scam”
Okay, cheaper American city !
I find AOC actually refreshingly principled.
...and stop the idea that you can make money by being a smart investor.

It is possible.

It is possible to make money buying lottery tickets too.

The best way to make money is to work for it. Yet because of a demand for profit and return on investment working people are getting squeezed with low wages and bad conditions.

Outrage at a invest platform doing some thing or another - I do not care about that. My outrage is at low wages and bad conditions for ordinary working people
Not yet atm, but send me an email at letstalkalgorithms@gmail.com and we can talk.
Nice work but it Lings Cars beats it hands down:

https://www.lingscars.com/
I agree that this is the technically correct definition of how margin is typically utilized, and that investors should be prepared for this in the case of high volatility.

The fact does remain, though, that the way the data is presenting itself seems to indicate that there was disingenuous behavior on the behalf of market makers and a number of hedge funds. To be seen, I guess.
Your 401(k) Hates You
As someone who has written a JPEG decoder, I am compelled to say that you are wrong, and the width and height are stored in the SOF marker segment.

http://vip.sugovica.hu/Sardi/kepnezo/JPEG%20File%20Layout%20...
It's anecdotal but ETrade, TD, Ally Financial all started blocking buy orders at seemingly the same time - yesterday morning shortly after market open. The reason I know this is because I was on the phone with a friend at 9am Central and neither him nor I were able to purchase $GME, $BB or $GMC (he's on Ally and I'm on Etrade). Around the same time I started seeing messages on social media that TD was also blocking traders. I think you're right that the order likely came from MMs and everyone followed through.
WhatsApp privacy policy update and its effects on users
Sure, not listing a stock is entirely different than only allowing a user to sell a listed stock.
True but I just migrated my email away from gmail due to "general google worries" and most colleagues dont realise Ive changed and continue to email me
Who has been doing this for decades? When has "Wall st." coordinated a random attack to squeeze cash out of an entity just for the hell of it?

You may disagree with the outcomes of short pressure, or private equity actions etc., thats fine, but I think there is an important distinction between actors in the market doing something profitable because they actually believe it, and the hysteria of a mob just randomly committing financial mayham because they can.

I don't think we want to live in a world where markets are increasingly led by irrational forces simply amplified by media and misinformation...its not good in media right now, I shudder to think what happens if that behavior gets a foothold in markets.
Google Colab is really good. I don't have an iPad, but it does work on there IIRC. It's more suited towards deep learning, but the notebooks are really good to teach python nonetheless.
I just checked; sadly it seems to only be for Nvidia hardware, which has very crummy open source driver support on my OS of choice: Linux.
The HN server has been so faithful to us. I hope it's feeling better soon.
Unless we rise above it. Certain things are never okay. But being intolerant and demanding tolerance is a shitty move as well. And it is nowhere near as clever as the people who try this think it is.

The discourse about whether and how much we should tolerate the intolerant is old and has be well discussed by post WWII philosophy. If we want to defend the freedom of all, we need to restrict those freedoms for the people who try to get rid of them.

Or as a neo nazi once said to me: "we want to establish the old power again, so we can silence you. until that happens, we want free speech".
Yes, you're right, I should have called her by her name. It slipped my memory and I was not feeling motivated to search for it. Given the contributions she has in the show she is a person of her own beyond being "Gordon's Wife".

I wouldn't say that Gordon was a fool, since that would mean he was stupid. I don't think anyone on the show was stupid. He was constrained by his fears and insecurities. That was the major driver in many of the mistakes he made over the show.
They immediately hedge it. If the market for GME is "one-way" (it's not, people are shorting), they might also hedge the sale by buying more exotic financial instruments and correlates of the GME price.

> they say "no, we're not taking on any more risk" and communicate that to Robin Hood.

Maybe, although they would probably do that when their ability to hedge started breaking down, not when they'd already acquired massive short positions.

More likely, to me, is that they would just increase the bid-ask price spread continuously as their ability to hedge degrades.
You can also add YouTube-dl and GitHub.
I think about it the other way. If you are doing something effectful, how often is it useful to also return some information?

To me, the answer is 'extremely often', so I don't see the value of what GP is proposing. It's nice to have pure functions and some kind of separation, but it's not worth it to give up returning values from effectful procedures.
I just get some random hard to debug crash. Is this production ready?

[root@docker-test-image-1 ~]# sudo systemctl status google-osconfig-agent

...

Started Google OSConfig Agent.
Jan 28 20:25:22 docker-test-image-1 OSConfigAgent[25491]: 2021-01-28T20:25:22.8732Z OSConfigAgent Info: OSConfig Agent (versi>
Jan 28 20:25:26 docker-test-image-1 OSConfigAgent[25491]: 2021-01-28T20:25:26.2589Z OSConfigAgent Error inventory.go:57: pack>
Jan 28 20:35:33 docker-test-image-1 OSConfigAgent[25491]: 2021-01-28T20:35:33.3380Z OSConfigAgent Error inventory.go:57: pack>
Please do not use the word "anarchy" as a synonym for "chaos". Anarchy is the opposite of chaos
It won't be long before the Biden Administration is declaring members from WallStreetBets to be domestic terrorists acting in concert to attack the US financial system (it'll be part of the broader War on Domestic Terrorism program that they've begun). The powers that be in DC and on Wall Street will never allow this kind of action to go unchecked indefinitely.

They'll probably make it a crime to organize large groups of individuals to herd buy/short a stock.
Sure, but under some assumptions. Assumptions like that some piece of code won't be transformed by a macro, that reasonably looking code like `a.b` doesn't have side effects, etc.

It's not that it's impossible, but that 1% (or 5%, 10%, ???% depending on how the project is structured and whether it uses a lot of side-effects or dynamic properties) can be enough make your program crash if the assumption turns out to be wrong.

Another example that you could go for, is can you determine whether a property of an object is used or not. If you have a language like JavaScript where you can do `object[propertyName]`, that turns out to be very hard. In a pure functional language, that is comparatively pretty straightforward to detect.
Patient-Physician Relationships: Medical Ethics
https://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/
Don't forget - This company actively removed employees who were willing to stand up against societal ills.*

*Yes I know this makes some people like them more.
> Now, it’s not always the case _if_ you can get the tenants to coöperate and pitch in on basic maintenance and keep anti social behavior at bay ala Singapore, but my feeling is we’re not of the same mindset as Singaporeans.

I live in Soviet-style housing in Poland. The antisocial behavior of some tenants (it seems that there's always at least one) is something you learn to live with. Over the years, you start ignoring the occasional puke in the hallway or automatically put on headphones when someone next to you starts blaring loud music again. All in all, given how much people pay for such flats in Poland, my guess is that it would be totally acceptable for most people to deal with the inconveniences, if the flat was free as a part of the UBI.
How long until Coinbase blocks the buying of popular tickers too because powerful hedge funds tell them?
The new site looks great. Best of luck!
Yes, but Coinbase is one of the major gateways to that. Most people will need to use a CEX to convert their Fiat to crypto.
>It can easily be the case that an exchange entity has a legal ability to deny access through delisting while a broker entity does not have the right to deny service in some particular scenario.

I realize that. That previously quoted answer was in response to me asking "Does a broker have a legal obligation to allow you to purchase any stock?" Someone answered that with a broad response without referring to any laws. I'm not sure how that leaves me with a responsibility to do a full legal breakdown of the issue.
IMO one of the most valuable things I've learned about static analysis is that the halting problem is overly pessimistic. It's easy to prove very interesting things about real-world code.

Things like dead-code removal are a pretty standard for modern optimizing compilers!
> Honest question: isn't this a fundamental contradiction?

I'm glad someone brought this up. When a developer (or artist, or musician, or other creative person) gives away their work for free, that is fine by me. But when they later hold out their hat and say, "by the way, I worked really hard on that and I'm a nice person, would you mind paying for it now?" that's when I feel like I'm being manipulated. If you wanted money for it, you should have just said up front instead of tossing the guilt trip in at the end.

I do appreciate Jeff's enthusiasm for technology and he's done some cool stuff. I would totally hire him for a consulting gig if I were in a position to do so. But he's part of this "give stuff away for free and beg for money later" culture that rubs me the wrong way.
I wasn't aware of pyo3 thanks for that.
The Régie des logements in Québec absolutely does cap price increases, or even forbid them outright some years.

It also does extra controls that many countries don't do, such as capping price increases even if the tenant change (the tenant needs to request the former rent, though).

Allowing rent increases in the case of renovations is unusual, but not that rare either. That said, it's absolutely not "just a dispute resolution board". It 100% is traditional rent control with capped price increases, on top of the rest.
The same firm, Citadel, that fills much of RH's orders is the firm that propped up Melvin Capital (the group that shorted GME and needed a bailout).

Option 3: The cabal is there, it isn't secret, and they were on the hook to lose so much money that it was cheaper to essentially sacrifice the RH brand than to let the short get fucked to infinity.

Edit: They have stated on a blog post that this was a risk management move on their part - not strictly in the interest of the customer.

The market is broken.
I'm sure this will all be downvoted because it will hurt peoples feelings.

1- RH, Etrade, etc are not manipulating anything. The ones who manipulated were the reddit and other chat rooms. If Costco doesn't want to stock your favorite item any more do you get to sue because you still want to buy it?

2- If the customers had no idea of the legal documents they signed when they opened their accounts, their bad, not the broker.

3- 'the trust of the retail trading industry' Certainly not retail investors (who are not the people doing this stuff). And I doubt also retail traders who are not engaged in mob trades based on what is coming out of internet chat rooms/boards. There was day trading prior to the advent of Robinhood and Covid-19, right?

4- First off, the shorts are done. That is a large part of why the price went to where it did. Second, the brokers are protecting themselves from default on margin loans as well as the headache and aggravation of closeouts when 'traders' moan about the fills.

5- Why on earth should the Biden administration go to bat for a retail trading mob? Many of whom are on record in the press as having used their stimulus and unemployment checks as capital?

6- Shorts are not only necessary for a market to function well, they are a common part of the market having nothing at all to do with a view on a company. The largest example of that are fund managers selling the stock of an aquiring company against a position they own in the company being purchased. Fund manager could mean pension fund manager, mutual fund manager, or, gasp, a hedge fund manager.
I didn't say anything about what you're supposed to think. You can definitely believe it's shady.

As for the proof about cutting losses - no, there's no proof. You can question every single fact you read about this story in the media if you want. The reasons most people have given for why they would lie about it instead of just do it kind of strain credulity for me. There are a lot of conspiracies being spread around with much regard for whether or not they are true instead of whether they could be true.
You just litigated the point. Saying the election was stolen versus you felt like the election was stolen are two completely different things. Regardless, if there is overwhelming proof that something is considered to be true by evidence you can audit and review, straight up denying it is indeed grounds to call into question your ability to speak truth.
I am curious as to whether the predictable counter-argument of "private organization with prerogative" will shift in the wake of the recent Robinhood fiasco.
I don't know; and I'd at least be happier with a dutch auction approach where AMD got the lions share of sales of their CPUs and GPUs so that the money could be invested in either more products soon, or better development later. At least in that case economically unnecessary middle-person impediments to customer fulfillment wouldn't reap the creator's profits.